This article is more than 5 years old.

I started the day with a quick visit to the exhibits. Here is a picture of my favorite vendor.

Bill Kane at the Alibris booth

Foregoing an opportunity to hear a discussion on Information Commons, I chose instead to hear Vernon Jordan in the “Auditorium Speakers” series. He started by telling the obligatory story about his first experience with libraries. His was more poignant than most because his public library in Atlanta was the “colored” branch of the Atlanta Public Library. Even in 1960 when he graduated law school, the library system was still segregated. His second book is about public speaking and will be published in the fall. His public speaking experience began with the AME church in Atlanta. He talked about working with Thurgood Marshall (another hero of mine) and then changed topic to talk about the 2008 presidential election. He said you cannot appreciate the Hillary Clinton candidacy until you understand Abigail Adams’ petition to her husband John Adams “Remember the ladies” when they were writing the Declaration of Independence to say “all men are created equal.” To understand Barack Obama’s journey as a candidate, he cited three legal cases regarding black suffrage. As for John McCain, he recalled his years of imprisonment in Viet Nam and third generation military service. Any of these candidates, he said, would help a country that has lost its moral authority in the world Vernon Jordan is one of those people you would listen to even if he were reading the Yellow Pages out loud. It was a pleasure to hear him.

Saturday from 1:30-3:30 is probably the single most popular program spot for the annual conference. Out of four semi-finalists that I wrote into my schedule, I picked “Tomorrow’s Library in Today’s Space,” sponsored by Library Administration and Management Association/Building and Equipment Section

Jay Schafer, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, DuBois Library Learning Commons

DuBois Library has the distinction of being the tallest academic library building in the world. Their building program considered characteristics of today’s undergraduates: always on, multiple communication modes, noisy, combining social, academic and food values. They resolved to consolidate service points, provide near 24×7 access, and flexible spaces. They debated whether to call the new space a learning commons or information commons. They decided on Learning Commons, which to them meant integration of learning services, from the library or other campus units with ties to student success, retention, and inclusion of diverse populations. The process lasted from 2003 to 2005, with an expansion in 2006. They visited University of Arizona and Indiana University Bloomington as part of the planning process. Their expansion was 25,000 sq ft with new paint, carpet, electrical (but it wasn’t enough for laptops) and furnishings. It now includes 200+ workstations, the Writing Center and Academic Advising & Career Services. They selected Herman Miller Resolve furniture for workstation pods and Herman Miller Ethospace system for glassed-in group study rooms. They set aside 2nd and 3rd floors as quiet space with cell phone booths. Their cafe is called the Procrastination Station (student-named). Staff were initially nervous and thought the library was being given away. They were instantly converted upon the opening of the space. The rule is: create a space for students, not librarians.

Susan Gibbons, River Campus Libraries, University of Rochester

4125 undergraduates
2900 graduate students
2.5 million volumes
Mix of original library and wraparound addition

Goals of the project were to improve aesthetics, improve access to library, and convert 23,000 sq ft from staff space to student space (cold, drafty, ugly). They used their now-famous undergraduate research project to ask students what they would like to see in the space. The only means of advertising was a sign saying “$5, Free Food, This Way” and then they invited students to draw their ideal library space. Themes running through the student visions were: natural light, flexibility, comfort in seating, importance of food and drink, power outlets, integrated technology, and all-purpose staff support.
Ayers/Saint/Gross was selected as the architect, mostly because they had already done the Campus Master Plan (sound familiar?) They used a”Future Pull” process, developed by Herman Miller, to design the space. The idea is to envision yourself in the future, imagine a future state wherein problems are already solved, and used that instead of traditional building program process. They went to furniture showrooms to get ideas of group work spaces. Total seating for the project was 330, including a Media Lounge with two 60″ flat screens, 8 group study rooms (with one wall of whiteboard) and a wall of windows instead of a plain brick wall.

Camas Public Library was the third project, which had less relevance for ZSR except that they solved the addition problem with a new wing that connected to the old with a grand atrium. (Just like us!)

SPARC-ACRL Scholarly Communications Forum

“The Harvard OA Experience” Stuart Schieber, Director, Office for Scholarly Communication, Harvard University

At heart, the issue is not the cost of serials but a reduction in access because of the cost of serials. What “gives” is reduction in monograph purchasing and access to serials. Even at Harvard, it is just not possible to keep up. This is a market failure with the cost per page from commercial publishers six times higher than non-profits. The cost per citation is sixteen times higher from commercial publishers. In 2005, Harvard’s Provost set up a committee to make recommendations on remedies for this situation. A report was submitted in February 2006 on possible things that Harvard could do to help: 1) Open Office of Scholarly Communications, 2) Faculties to institute open access policies, 3) University to underwrite reasonable open access journal charges.

Harvard Open Access Policy

Faculty grant permission to Harvard to post articles in repository
Waiver is available upon written permission
Articles to be deposited in Harvard repository (when it is established)

When faculty sign a publication agreement, they are supplied with an Addendum to Publication Agreement to send to publisher. The other option is to request a waiver from the University.

Advantages of the policy:

•Make a collective statement of principle
•Systematically provide article metadata
•Clarifies rights situation
•Allows university to facilitate article deposit process
•Allows university to negotiate collectively
•Opt-out versus opt-in may increase rights retention

The policy was discussed thoroughly with various faculty groups. On February 12, the Arts and Science Faculty voted unanimously to support the policy. The Law faculty have followed suit and the medical faculty may be next.

Kevin Smith, Duke University, “Campus Open Access Policies: Legal Considerations”

Open Access is a negotiation between producers (faculty authors) and distributors (publishers) NOT between libraries and vendors. Questions that come up:

Who owns faculty copyright? Default answer is “the author,” unless it is considered a work for hire. Most universities have policies that specify copyright remains with the faculty. Ironically, most faculty routinely give it away to the publisher without compensation and are reluctant to share it with their own institution.

What is the impact of other open access mandates, for example NIH’s requirement for inclusion in Pub Med Central or disciplinary repositories? How is the hybrid publishing option addressed? Are both necessary?

Licenses should be non-exclusive, automatic and give the institution right to authorize others to use the work. Waiver provisions like Harvard’s may be necessary. Publishers need to be informed up front about prior license at the institution.

Catherine Candee, “Its Not About Open Access,” University of California

It’s about research, teaching and learning, and building a sustainable publishing and communication system to optimize them. A publishing system needs to spur innovation in research and scholarship, meet expanding information and publishing needs, enhance communication of knowledge to scholars, students and the public, and bring results of research to bear on the challenges of modern society. At California, faculty saw that the tenure and promotion system impedes changes in faculty behavior, but think that the problem affects others more than themselves. California is also considering an open access policy mandate like Harvard’s, but has yet to pass it.